right, god forbid you actually bring a discussion to a discussion board.

Ya, something like that. Sorry. But what in the hell does a loaded thread like this accomplish?

...However, the burden is on the originator if we must proceed. I asked him for specific examples; besides his personal story, I'm still waiting for
something tangible (the agenda) to sink my teeth into.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
That's why I have a website - to put on record my position for all to see. Rehashing it here is (or should be) unnecessary.

Yes, I had a quick butchers (assuming it is www.conspiracyarchive.com...). An interesting read, although the bit on freemasonry had a few errors
and a few assumptions I didn't agree with.

Perhaps instead of just referring people to your website why don't you take one or two themes you have developed and open them up for discussion on
some new threads? I'm sure ATS members will have some interesting insights and perspectives.

I've been a mason for over a year and a half now. At first my wife had some misgivings, but once she actually learned more she accepted it. I
personally get a kick out of reading some of the anti mason sites, I truly wonder if these people have any other life besides bashing a fraternal
organization.

Here in Maryland and in our lodge in particular, there is a renewed interest in masonry and membership is flourishing. I think that only a small
number of people are actually anti mason, just because you have websites spewing garbage doesn't mean you're that big.

If someone doesn't want to be a friend of mine because I'm a mason then they are not the type of people I would want to associate with. More then
likely if I wasn't a mason, I wouldn't like them either.

On a funnier not, I had a table at the Grand Lodge Bull and Oyster Roast a couple weeks ago with my family. My father is in the Knights of Columbus
and him and my mother raved about how good the party was, they told there KOC friends about it and now next year I'm going to have to hold several
tables for his KOC friends. A good party always trumps any religious teachings against masonry

Originally posted by Trinityman
Perhaps instead of just referring people to your website why don't you take one or two themes you have developed and open them up for discussion on
some new threads?

Not a problem. How bout all the occult superstars that have taken it upon themselves to speak for Masonry proper. How about all the Adrian Gilberts
who are extremely versed in all the arcane special magazines which you and I could only hope to have access to: Ars Quatuor Coronatorum.

I believe the agenda is to keep their pews full and equally keep their coffers full. They need anything but them to be satanic to support their dogma.
Look at the witch hunt way back when. Witch prickers were invented, stories were made up, a system that created fear was used.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
No "occult superstars" claim to speak for "Masonry proper".

This standard asinine excuse is really quite old and insulting. Ya, sure; every minion of Masonry is an autonomous entity, totally void of dogma or of
partaking in consensus. Go forth into the world my children and repeat ad infinitum: "No one speaks for Masonry"; "No one speaks for
Masonry"; "No one speaks for Masonry"; "No one speaks for Masonry".

The fact remains, however, that the occult superstars did and do exist. In fact, Freemasons have cornered the market on occultism in toto since
at least the 18th century. As a student of history - that much I've gathered from my brief time spent here - you know that there's no need for me to
further elaborate upon this extremely suspicious truth.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
No "occult superstars" claim to speak for "Masonry proper".

The fact remains, however, that the occult superstars did and do exist. In fact, Freemasons have cornered the market on occultism in
toto since at least the 18th century. As a student of history - that much I've gathered from my brief time spent here - you know that there's no
need for me to further elaborate upon this extremely suspicious truth.

Well you could certainly help your position a bit more if you

named names (preferably of the ones who are still alive... no point in covering Mackey, Waite, Pike, Crowley, et al)

were able to back up those names with proof that they're both "occult superstars" and Freemasons.

"no point in covering ..." so and so, you say? That is the WHOLE point. The entire edifice of the occult industry that pervades society today
is solely because of the efforts and teachings of certain individuals who happened to be Freemasons. Once you start accumulating names and assembling
them together, it is clear that it can't be coincidence that it is this organization that either produces, or attracts, such people. It says
something about the nature of the organization itself.

Hell, that article was written a while ago. My studies now have firmly been occupied with the all-important 18th century. The rites and rituals
invented in that century (by masons) are the core of such things - for one - as today's ritual magick practiced by the likes of OTO and Golden Dawn.
The Elus Cohen, Les Amis Reunis, The Strict Observance, the Golden and Rosy Cross, the Primitive Rite of Les Philadelphes, the Asiatic Brethren; the
work of Willermoz, Pernety, Cagliostro, Martinism-proper (Louis Claude de St. Martin and Martinez Pasquales), Mesmer, St. Germain, and much, much more
(even the Tarot studies by the Neuf Soeurs initiate-extraordinaire, Antoine Court de Gébelin - whom Weishaupt admired quite a bit, even
translating some of the former's Monde Primitif).

All extremely crucial for what we dub today as occultism; in fact, without the foregoing Freemasons having existed at all, the industry of esotericism
or occultism would have a very different face - and it wouldn't be an industry at all. Those men midwifed the earlier scattered bits of hermeticism,
kabbalism, gnosticism, theurgy and alchemy squarely into the modern age; and into a coherent discipline.

No, you haven't. I'm asking for a list of people who are alive, and the closest you can
get me on your list died 18 years ago. It's all fine and good to look at history, but I'm challenging you for information and proof on what's going
on TODAY.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
The "do exist" bit was what I was asking you to elaborate on.

Lack of information. You guys hold all the cards, and are not sharing with anyone. Isn't it funny how we find out, finally, all the affiliations of a
person only when they die. Obituaries are great sources for secret society confirmation.

There should be a law that requires Grand Lodges to register all their members with a public body. We ostensibly live in a free society, but without
transparency, it is only a pipe-dream. I demand to know if the judge, police officer, or the prosecuting attorney is on the square; I demand to know
if my councilman, landlord, or bank manager is on the square.

Don't give me that sh%^t about it's a private matter and everyone has a right to privacy. When it comes to public positions, no. I don't care if
joe-schmuk doing the floors at the 711 is a Mason; I do care, however, if members of the judicial establishment are.

And, also, I suppose, I care if the latest ying-yang tauting the most recent new age bestseller is a Mason. But alas, it is forbidden for me to know -
unless, that is, the person has the integrity and the balls to actually admit it in public.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
The "do exist" bit was what I was asking you to elaborate on.

Lack of information. You guys hold all the cards, and are not sharing with anyone. Isn't it funny how we find out, finally, all the affiliations of a
person only when they die. Obituaries are great sources for secret society confirmation.
..
So, I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage. How convenient.

Not at all, and no need to be condescending. Waite, Crowley, Hall, etc. all
published during their lifetimes, so saying it's a secret until you're dead doesn't cut it. I'd love for there to be a respected occult authority,
alive to day and currently publishing. I'm wondering if there is such a person, because if there were, I'd like to read what they had to say. Such a
person would indeed be an "occult superstar." You've named superstars of the past, and I'm not disagreeing with you there. You've said there are
such people today, but can't name any, and are now trying to say we won't know they were Masons until they die. I don't buy that excuse. If
there's a contemporary equivalent to the historical names you've covered, they'd be on the shelves of my local bookstore for all to see. Crowley
was in his day, as were Waite, Mackey, and all the rest. They mostly got respect from their peers (Ok, there are plenty of arguments against Crowley
as well, but for sake of argument...) The Freemasonry for Dummies type books aren't particularly esoteric. So where is the good, published, esoteric
work today that equals that of the past? I'd like to know, because I'd like to add it to my collection.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
You've said there are such people today, but can't name any, and are now trying to say we won't know they were Masons until they die. I don't buy
that excuse.

Adrian Gilbert; the Lomas and Knight idiots who have become quite influential; and let's not forget Michael Baigent. The latter is extremely
important as far as indoctrination of society on the theories that Jesus was married to Magdalene, had kids and progeny; that his occult secrets were
preserved in Gnostic secret societies and that an entirely made-up secret society, Priory of Sion, is the most powerful of said underground movements.
Direct from Baigent we have, then, the heretical nonsense of the Da Vinci Code. Taken together, these aforementioned Masons have done quite a bit of
indoctrinating - indeed!

I'm sure there are more influential masons besides those; but alas, I wasn't making it up that membership is secret. And thus, I wasn't making it
up that you have me at a disadvantage, and that it is some convenient.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.